Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

This is the fifth time an SEC team has been excused a home loss and still escorted into the BCS title game -- LSU 2003, LSU 2007, Florida 2008, Alabama 2011, Alabama 2012.

Only one non-SEC team has been so fortunate -- Ohio State 2007.

IMO, home losses are inexcusable and should be severely punished, far beyond what the current system allows. Other than 1985 I certainly never fantasized about the Canes winning the title in a season with a home defeat. The 1985 example was a strange case because Miami lost at home in the opener to Florida, then defeated Oklahoma soundly at Norman several weeks later. Unbeaten Penn State, Miami and Oklahoma were the three teams in the title discussion so if Oklahoma beat Penn State then somebody with a home loss had to get it. It would have been a split title if Miami had beaten Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. Instead they were manhandled 35-7. I didn't feel so bad about that one, given the home loss.

Alabama was gifted a split championship in 1978 despite a lopsided home defeat to USC, the team it shared the title with. USC's loss was on the road, at Arizona State.

Just annoys the heck out of me. I appreciate Alabama's style of play and the SEC in general but home defeats should drop you to a different level.

Alabama should grind out Notre Dame, which will struggle to score.

I'm probably one of the few posters who remembers the 1973 season Sugar Bowl matchup between these two schools, with Tommy Clements cleverly leading Notre Dame to a 24-23 victory and the national title. The Sugar Bowl was held on New Year's Eve for a few years since the SEC was afraid to go head to head in the ratings with the juggernaut Big 8 in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma was probably the best team in 1973 but they were on probation and ineligible for a bowl. The Sooners went 10-0-1 with the tie at USC, 7-7, despite outgaining the defending national champion Trojans by roughly 320-120. That was an awesome Sooner defense. Oklahoma beat its two biggest rivals by huge margins -- 52-13 over Texas and 27-0 over Nebraska. I remember Las Vegas oddsmaker Bob Martin announcing that Oklahoma would be a touchdown favorite over Alabama or Notre Dame. BTW, Alabama still claims 1973 as a title year despite the defeat. The UPI poll completed its voting prior to the bowl games during those years. I believe it changed in 1974.

I was rooting for Bama because they were playing Georgia. I root for everyone who plays Georgia.

:feelsgoodman:

Hell of a game, but that was definitely a derp by UGA down there not spiking the ball there. You only had enough time for a few plays with 15 seconds anyway.

Not really a derp at all. They would've thrown it in the corner of the endzone and 9 times outta ten it would've been an incompletion. It was just a great job by Bama to bat the ball, and you can't blame the UGA WR for catching it when he should've dropped it. I don't think they sent out that memo.

Not really a derp at all. They would've thrown it in the corner of the endzone and 9 times outta ten it would've been an incompletion. It was just a great job by Bama to bat the ball, and you can't blame the UGA WR for catching it when he should've dropped it. I don't think they sent out that memo.

Which is why you clock it. So you can calm down and think/talk that kind of stuff through. It was idiocy to not clock it. They could have easily ran two plays if they had.

**** Alabama Crimson Tide Thread ****

Other then that last drive that was a good game to watch. Richt finally had a chance to silence his critics and blew it out his ass at the end. If I was Murray I would have spiked the ball and took the ass chewing. Idiots.

**** Alabama Crimson Tide Thread ****

This is the fifth time an SEC team has been excused a home loss and still escorted into the BCS title game -- LSU 2003, LSU 2007, Florida 2008, Alabama 2011, Alabama 2012.

Only one non-SEC team has been so fortunate -- Ohio State 2007.

IMO, home losses are inexcusable and should be severely punished, far beyond what the current system allows. Other than 1985 I certainly never fantasized about the Canes winning the title in a season with a home defeat. The 1985 example was a strange case because Miami lost at home in the opener to Florida, then defeated Oklahoma soundly at Norman several weeks later. Unbeaten Penn State, Miami and Oklahoma were the three teams in the title discussion so if Oklahoma beat Penn State then somebody with a home loss had to get it. It would have been a split title if Miami had beaten Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. Instead they were manhandled 35-7. I didn't feel so bad about that one, given the home loss.

Alabama was gifted a split championship in 1978 despite a lopsided home defeat to USC, the team it shared the title with. USC's loss was on the road, at Arizona State.

Just annoys the heck out of me. I appreciate Alabama's style of play and the SEC in general but home defeats should drop you to a different level.

Alabama should grind out Notre Dame, which will struggle to score.

I'm probably one of the few posters who remembers the 1973 season Sugar Bowl matchup between these two schools, with Tommy Clements cleverly leading Notre Dame to a 24-23 victory and the national title. The Sugar Bowl was held on New Year's Eve for a few years since the SEC was afraid to go head to head in the ratings with the juggernaut Big 8 in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma was probably the best team in 1973 but they were on probation and ineligible for a bowl. The Sooners went 10-0-1 with the tie at USC, 7-7, despite outgaining the defending national champion Trojans by roughly 320-120. That was an awesome Sooner defense. Oklahoma beat its two biggest rivals by huge margins -- 52-13 over Texas and 27-0 over Nebraska. I remember Las Vegas oddsmaker Bob Martin announcing that Oklahoma would be a touchdown favorite over Alabama or Notre Dame. BTW, Alabama still claims 1973 as a title year despite the defeat. The UPI poll completed its voting prior to the bowl games during those years. I believe it changed in 1974.

I remember the Sugar Bowl and started recalling some of this as I read. The first game I recall a conference playing in a bowl other then the one designated to a conference champ was the Michigan v Oklahoma Orange Bowl. I think it was 76.

This is the fifth time an SEC team has been excused a home loss and still escorted into the BCS title game -- LSU 2003, LSU 2007, Florida 2008, Alabama 2011, Alabama 2012.

Only one non-SEC team has been so fortunate -- Ohio State 2007.

IMO, home losses are inexcusable and should be severely punished, far beyond what the current system allows. Other than 1985 I certainly never fantasized about the Canes winning the title in a season with a home defeat. The 1985 example was a strange case because Miami lost at home in the opener to Florida, then defeated Oklahoma soundly at Norman several weeks later. Unbeaten Penn State, Miami and Oklahoma were the three teams in the title discussion so if Oklahoma beat Penn State then somebody with a home loss had to get it. It would have been a split title if Miami had beaten Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. Instead they were manhandled 35-7. I didn't feel so bad about that one, given the home loss.

Alabama was gifted a split championship in 1978 despite a lopsided home defeat to USC, the team it shared the title with. USC's loss was on the road, at Arizona State.

Just annoys the heck out of me. I appreciate Alabama's style of play and the SEC in general but home defeats should drop you to a different level.

Alabama should grind out Notre Dame, which will struggle to score.

I'm probably one of the few posters who remembers the 1973 season Sugar Bowl matchup between these two schools, with Tommy Clements cleverly leading Notre Dame to a 24-23 victory and the national title. The Sugar Bowl was held on New Year's Eve for a few years since the SEC was afraid to go head to head in the ratings with the juggernaut Big 8 in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma was probably the best team in 1973 but they were on probation and ineligible for a bowl. The Sooners went 10-0-1 with the tie at USC, 7-7, despite outgaining the defending national champion Trojans by roughly 320-120. That was an awesome Sooner defense. Oklahoma beat its two biggest rivals by huge margins -- 52-13 over Texas and 27-0 over Nebraska. I remember Las Vegas oddsmaker Bob Martin announcing that Oklahoma would be a touchdown favorite over Alabama or Notre Dame. BTW, Alabama still claims 1973 as a title year despite the defeat. The UPI poll completed its voting prior to the bowl games during those years. I believe it changed in 1974.

The SEC afraid to go head to head with the Big-8 in the ratings? Do you not remember the Orange Bowl having a Zero U-Nebraska rematch? Who was afraid of who that year....

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any sport where a home loss is more severely punished than a road loss. That's nothing more than something for people to say in order to support a biased view they already hold. I'm afraid you can't just make rules up as you go in order to fulfill your anti- SEC bias...

Then again maybe you can. They've already done it in regards to limiting how many teams from the SEC can participate in BCS games. This 2 team per conference rule they just come up with was meant to limit the SEC. If an unbiased person was really going to complain about something relevant, they'd be complaining about how only 2 of LSU, Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia can participate in a BCS game. If you can't beat the SEC on the field, try to beat 'em in politics.

To insinuate that a 5 point home loss to a top 10 team like Texas A&M, or a 3 point home loss in overtime to the #1 team in the country like LSU last year is somehow more punishable than a road loss to an unranked, 4 touchdown underdog like Oklahoma St. lost last year to Iowa St. is preposterous. Especially when Alabama has to play 'em back-to-back-to-back.

USC was given a chance to begin the season. They were ranked #1.... a position they hadn't even earned. 5 Losses later we're still complaining?

The top 6 teams in the SEC have all only lost to each other. People like you want to punish a home loss more severely, but not give any more clout to a road win within the SEC while all these top 5 teams are knocking heads and eliminating each other.

The SEC afraid to go head to head with the Big-8 in the ratings? Do you not remember the Orange Bowl having a Zero U-Nebraska rematch? Who was afraid of who that year....

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any sport where a home loss is more severely punished than a road loss. That's nothing more than something for people to say in order to support a biased view they already hold. I'm afraid you can't just make rules up as you go in order to fulfill your anti- SEC bias...

Then again maybe you can. They've already done it in regards to limiting how many teams from the SEC can participate in BCS games. This 2 team per conference rule they just come up with was meant to limit the SEC. If an unbiased person was really going to complain about something relevant, they'd be complaining about how only 2 of LSU, Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia can participate in a BCS game. If you can't beat the SEC on the field, try to beat 'em in politics.

To insinuate that a 5 point home loss to a top 10 team like Texas A&M, or a 3 point home loss in overtime to the #1 team in the country like LSU last year is somehow more punishable than a road loss to an unranked, 4 touchdown underdog like Oklahoma St. lost last year to Iowa St. is preposterous. Especially when Alabama has to play 'em back-to-back-to-back.

USC was given a chance to begin the season. They were ranked #1.... a position they hadn't even earned. 5 Losses later we're still complaining?

The top 6 teams in the SEC have all only lost to each other. People like you want to punish a home loss more severely, but not give any more clout to a road win within the SEC while all these top 5 teams are knocking heads and eliminating each other.

Get him Slimm. SEC haters are so full of bull****.

Id love to see Bama vs. Notre Dame in the title game

Florida vs. Oregon in the Sugar

Georgia vs. K St in the Fiesta

Tex A&M vs Stanford in the Rose

and LSU vs. Ohio St or Wisconsin or whoever else you want to put in the Orange.

Guess who will win each and every one of those matchups.... The haters already know.

Whats a joke is that teams like Florida St and Louisville get BCS games for winning terrible conferences. We already saw how Florida St matches up with a top SEC team.

How bout a 5 loss team going to the Rose Bowl because half of the teams in their league are ineligable? Thats not a joke? But, somehow it would be a crime if more than 2 SEC teams got to play in these games. GET REAL!

Slimm I think we know the real reason the BCS dosent want to feature 3 or 4 SEC teams..... they dont want all of these other schools getting embarrased and exposing just how irrelevant the rest of college football is.